131–140 of 164 posts
A "team" means more than one human, and coordination of >1 humans requires a contract. A group of humans negotiating a contract for employment is "collective bargaining", which is a no-go for business, because divide and conquer is cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> a company might pay each member a bit more for a team experienced in working together, as in theory they should be more productive more quickly. On the other hand, if you already have an established team, merging them when they see themselves as distinct groups might be tough. The other issue I see is that I doubt companies will want this to become common in the industry. Even if it's great for hiring (and I think…
I guess there is a fine line between collective bargaining and holding a company hostage. Remember when the cast of Friends all negotiated for $1M/episode, and they pitched it as "you pay us all, or you don't have a product"? I don't recall any public outcry that they were holding NBC hostage. As we move toward a completely digital society, it only makes sense that the digital gatekeepers will have more leverage. Emp…
My mental image of the cast of Friends holding NBC hostage is that of two people with guns trained on each other, both yelling, "come any closer and I'll shoot."
We're using W8BEN + custom contract + TransferWise but it's a real pain to do each time and keep track of…
Everyone is responsible just for themselves in a rat race competition. We are just individuals. Unions are bad. Organization is bad. Agglomerations are bad.
Move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one, what if the hiring company interviews the team and wants 7 of the 10? In the model OP is talking about, that's not allowed. You either hire the whole team or none of them. The team knows this, so they're mostly not going to be running off to look at unrelated offers.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand your comment. Where does it say anything about the rules of this proposed idea? Isn't this a hypothetical?
This is an anti-capitalistic proposition. The companies don't want strong bond between employees. The simple idea that employees could have stronger bonds between themselves than for their benevolent company is utter anti-capitalistic. Everyone is responsible just for themselves in a rat race competition. We are just individuals. Unions are bad. Organization is bad. Agglomerations are bad. Move on.
Then again, I DO recall when my CEO gave speeches about "fostering less teamwork" and that other time he flipped the table at the company happy hour when he overheard an engineer invite a sales guy over to his apartment. OH and not to mention my company's strict policy on NO employee referrals for hiring... Hmm maybe you're onto something!
Hiring a team is often the basis for buying and selling consulting services. The premium that consultants charge is often based on the value of having assembled a team with specific expertise. The other way teams are bought and sold is via the outright purchase of companies. It is hard to see why and how a functioning and talented team would be assembled outside those circumstances. I mean a team built to sell sugges…
As you quite rightly point out this is a long way away from OPs original vision.
Hiring a team is often the basis for buying and selling consulting services. The premium that consultants charge is often based on the value of having assembled a team with specific expertise. The other way teams are bought and sold is via the outright purchase of companies. It is hard to see why and how a functioning and talented team would be assembled outside those circumstances. I mean a team built to sell sugges…
I've been studying this whole Team as a Service approach to offering consulting services for my software consulting company. It's interesting, and something I'm going to explore as I like the idea of a customer hiring a subset of my team as they're already optimised working with one another. As you quite rightly point out this is a long way away from OPs original vision.
It actually works pretty well as long as you realize that the "accounting" works differently offshore -- for every good developer you get, you're paying to have someone's dead weight cousin on the project as well. In the end, it's still cheaper than on-shore, just don't expect everyone to pull equal weight.